Favorite Espresso Blends 2010 - Page 8

Behind the scenes of the site's projects and equipment reviews.
User avatar
HB (original poster)
Admin
Posts: 21983
Joined: 19 years ago

#71: Post by HB (original poster) »

This concludes the formal review of Espresso Dolce - Espresso Vivace Roasteria and Belle Espresso - Klatch Coffee.

For those who wish to add their results for these two coffees, this thread will remain unlocked until the start of the next review cycle in approximately one week. The next two coffees will be announced in Nominees for "Favorite Espresso Blends" review.
Dan Kehn

User avatar
Peppersass
Posts: 3690
Joined: 15 years ago

#72: Post by Peppersass »

Once again, a great job by the reviewers. Thanks, guys!

I've had inconsistent results with Vivace Dolce. Last summer and fall, when I was just getting into home espresso, I thought it was the best of all the top-rated blends I had tried. I started ordering Dolce on a regular basis and alternated it with one of my favorite SOs. But after a few months I started getting batches of Dolce that were disappointing. Instead of the sweet comfort-food shots I had gotten previously, I was getting bitter, edgy and funky shots. Not the same experience at all. I ordered a couple of times after that, but got disappointing results again and finally gave up on the blend.

After reading the reviews, I ordered yet another batch of Dolce. This time the coffee was better, and my impressions generally matched those of the reviewers. But it wasn't the awesome experience I had when I first tried Dolce (I didn't try a macchiato with a little sugar, but I didn't do that last year, either.) Yes, my tastes, skills and equipment have evolved a lot over the past year, but I don't think that explains it.

After viewing Jim's photos, I'm wondering if the use of poor quality coffees with lots of defects makes it any more difficult for the roaster to maintain a consistent flavor profile than it would be using premium coffees. After all, even the premium coffees can change from crop to crop. I understand that Vivace is using roasting techniques to achieve a certain flavor profile, but that can't be entirely independent of the beans they have to work with. Could lack of consistency in the batches of low-quality beans Vivace buys be the reason why I've gotten such radically different results with Dolce? Could it explain why Chris says grind coarser and Jim says grind finer?

Advertisement
User avatar
another_jim
Team HB
Posts: 13871
Joined: 19 years ago

#73: Post by another_jim »

Part of the differences in recommendation between Chris and me, as well as all the other reviewers, is that we like the different tasting shots. The classic Dolce shot at Vivace is an intensely woody shot with nut and malt flavors. This is how Chris was trained to do it, and his instructions should be considered normative. I much prefer it softer, mostly chocolate and caramel, with just hints of the aged edge.

Both blends using high defect naturals and aged coffees, like Dolce, and those using very high end coffees, will vary year to year. The defect ones can be sublime, undrinkable, or a bit of both. The high end blends can go from sublime to blah. Most specialty coffee blenders use low end specialty beans that are well prepped but not particularly great tasting. These produce consistently blah blends.

I think just reading these reviews will give people a very lively sense of the Hobson's choice blenders face. Toscano, Dolce, and to some extent Belle, use big, bold and flawed coffees. Hairbender and Ecco are flawless, but also a lot more subtle. And Black Cat is using flawless big coffees each time, but you have absolutely no clue how the next bag will taste, or even whether it will work as espresso.

Perhaps we need to add that we've all been at this for a long time, and have become very picky. All these blends are a lot better than anything at Starbucks, Peets or other chains; and they are also a lot better than most Mom and Pop roasters who randomly mix and burn beans.
Jim Schulman

User avatar
TrlstanC
Posts: 505
Joined: 16 years ago

#74: Post by TrlstanC »

I tried pulling Dolce for the first time this weekend, and it was great to have these reviews to help get it dialed in. The pull looks like it's going incredibly fast, and you end up with so much crema that I would've assumed I'd done something drastically wrong if I hadn't been expecting it before hand. I was also packing in much more coffee then I usually use.

The straight shots were interesting, with some off flavors, but as a macchiato with a little sugar it really was excellent, some of the best milk drinks I've ever had.

Thanks again for the reviews, they've motivated me to try out a few new coffees that hadn't been on my "to-do" list. And I'm looking forward to the Ambrosia review (whenever that will be) it's been my baseline blend for awhile now, and I'd like to see how everyone approaches it.

User avatar
malachi
Posts: 2695
Joined: 19 years ago

#75: Post by malachi »

another_jim wrote:Part of the differences in recommendation between Chris and me, as well as all the other reviewers, is that we like the different tasting shots. The classic Dolce shot at Vivace is an intensely woody shot with nut and malt flavors. This is how Chris was trained to do it, and his instructions should be considered normative. I much prefer it softer, mostly chocolate and caramel, with just hints of the aged edge.
I think this is really important for everyone to understand.
One of the values of Peer Reviewing (like this) is that is builds a consensus opinion. This does, however, obscure the fact that each of us has our own taste and preference. This not only results in us pulling shots in different manners in some cases and calling them "optimal" (to our taste) - it also results in some of us liking coffees others dislike (and vice versa).
another_jim wrote:Both blends using high defect naturals and aged coffees, like Dolce, and those using very high end coffees, will vary year to year. The defect ones can be sublime, undrinkable, or a bit of both. The high end blends can go from sublime to blah. Most specialty coffee blenders use low end specialty beans that are well prepped but not particularly great tasting. These produce consistently blah blends.
Two other really important points that deserve reinforcement.

1 - an espresso blend changes not only year to year, but in fact many times throughout the year. Some roasters change the actual beans in the blend throughout the year based upon peak flavors and availability. Other roasters use the same beans throughout the year (which age and change over time). And, of course, each bean changes harvest to harvest.

2 - the difference between "most speciality coffee blenders" and the top coffee roasting companies is dramatic. Not just in terms of their coffee but also their approach to coffee.
another_jim wrote:Perhaps we need to add that we've all been at this for a long time, and have become very picky.
To say the least.
What's in the cup is what matters.

jasonmolinari
Posts: 513
Joined: 19 years ago

#76: Post by jasonmolinari »

Regarding Dolce, both Jim and Chris seem to surprised a little that this coffee can be so good, even though it uses non super-premium coffees, and Chris goes as far as to say that

"For me this is a hard one. Philosophically, it's counter to what I believe. But... I deeply respect the Italian tradition - and also believe in creating a great experience for people drinking my drinks. The "coffee" here is horrible. It has terrible defects, it's arguably not of specialty coffee grade... it's just bad. But.... the espresso produced from it ranged (when done well) from good / interesting to great / amazing."
and that
"They'd rather have that than a single origin CoE shot that tastes like sour tea or hot lemonade."

Jim finds it disconcerting that he liked the shots he pulled.

I don't really understand this. Isn't what we are doing all about the flavor and taste of the finished product? Ultimately who cares if the beans used are subpar if what it produces is above-par?
It seems that preconceptions are getting dangerously close to obfuscating a clear unbiased review. Are you telling me that if i gave you a CoE that tasted like crap, you would prefer to drink that over a poorly prepped coffee that made a killer espresso? Why?

Other than for the sake of morality and the farmer's well being, which one could argue is helped by specialty prepped coffee, who gives a rats ass about the quality of the BEAN. What matters is what is in the cup. Isn't that what we've always all said here and what people repeat ad-nauseam?

I almost feel like it doesn't even belong being mentioned in a review of the coffee.

I'm disappointed that our top reviewers seem as concerned, if not more, about the perfectness of the bean, rather than the taste and goodness of the coffee they produce. I hope I'm not offending anyone with my thoughts, and i appreciate all the effort that goes into these reviews. Maybe i'm missing the key reasoning behind the bean analysis...

User avatar
HB (original poster)
Admin
Posts: 21983
Joined: 19 years ago

#77: Post by HB (original poster) »

jasonmolinari wrote:Ultimately who cares if the beans used are subpar if what it produces is above-par? ... Maybe i'm missing the key reasoning behind the bean analysis...
I took their comments as expressions of surprise. Given the conventional wisdom that defects = inferior coffee, Vivace's unconventional coffee selection merits discussion.
Dan Kehn

Advertisement
User avatar
tekomino
Posts: 1105
Joined: 14 years ago

#78: Post by tekomino »

jasonmolinari wrote:Ultimately who cares if the beans used are subpar if what it produces is above-par?
It seems that preconceptions are getting dangerously close to obfuscating a clear unbiased review.
I did not take it as that. I took it as compliment to roasters skills and being able to produce good roast with sub-par beans.

You have to look at ingredients when selecting what to review. It is good approach to narrow what blends to review. Does this show that sometimes looking at ingredients does not lead to clear correlation to what's in cup? Sure.

User avatar
another_jim
Team HB
Posts: 13871
Joined: 19 years ago

#79: Post by another_jim »

jasonmolinari wrote: I'm disappointed that our top reviewers seem as concerned, if not more, about the perfectness of the bean, rather than the taste and goodness of the coffee they produce. I hope I'm not offending anyone with my thoughts, and i appreciate all the effort that goes into these reviews. Maybe i'm missing the key reasoning behind the bean analysis...
It's a great point, and certainly not offensive. Most people would think you are right to say this; but I disagree. Taste is a tricky thing; and we don't really know how much of it is hardwired, true for all human beings, cultural and true for all experienced espresso lovers, or purely individualistic, and true just for me or you.

If it's not much culture, and mostly hardwired and/or individual; the best review procedure would be to have a half dozen people state what they like and dislike, and for all the readers to work out which reviewers in what circumstances best reflect their taste.

But I'm a socologist, and a big believer in culture. Not so much of the big stuff like East versus West, but the little stuff, like the mutual understandings that develop at water cooler at work, the local bar, the professional society, and the annual convention. (I think the big stuff is mostly all the little stuff added up)

If what people like about espresso is strongly determined by how espresso lovers talk about it, then theories about what makes good and bad coffee will affect people's taste. One such theory is that the quality of the coffee bean is and ought to be the biggest determinant, and that everything else is just a channel that is either clear or distorted. Another theory is that espresso is an ideal drink, a taste and mouthfeel experience that a talented coffee person has in mind. That talented person goes out and uses whatever methods at her or his disposal to make that vision reality. George Howell of Terroir is at the very extreme of believing coffee is the bean, while Schomer is at the very extreme of believing coffee is a personal vision made real. The industry consensus is trending strongly in the direction of George Howell, and it is a trend with which Chris and I mostly agree. This means our enjoying Dolce is a counterexample, a hint that our general views may be wrong.

In closing. Readers have a right to know what views shape our reviews; otherwise they would be dishonest. We, as reviewers, have a right to make up our minds about what the activity of forming and sharing opinions means, otherwise we wouldn't be reviewers, but a taste survey consumer panel
Jim Schulman

User avatar
tekomino
Posts: 1105
Joined: 14 years ago

#80: Post by tekomino »

another_jim wrote:If what people like about espresso is strongly determined by how espresso lovers talk about it, then theories about what makes good and bad coffee will affect the taste.
This reminded me of results of study recently conducted on children foods and how branding affects choices. But relevant tidbit to this discussion is this:
The bottom line is that when kids are presented with a choice of graham crackers, fruit snacks or carrots, and the only difference is that one package has a licensed character on it, they actually think that the food with the character tastes better